During former president Bush's administration the Iranian regime was called the "Axis of Evil", and there was a lot of talk about sanctions. The sanctions were supposed to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
But the sanctions were not really effective in motivating either the people or the regime to stop their nuclear quest.

Perhaps the reason the sanctions did not motivate the people of Iran to put pressure on their leaders to stop short of making fissionable material for a nuclear warhead. Was the fact that the sanctions did not include food stuffs, medical supplies and many other items of commerce. These ARE considered "humanitarian" aid.

My question is what good is it going to do if you allow the supposed enemy, who has sworn to eliminate Israel and the USA, to buy food supplies from US when we are faced with rising costs for products made of grains like wheat and soy beans?
Talk about sanctions is cheap! Real sanctions to be effective must include an embargo on all products. Especially when Americans are paying over $3.00 for a loaf of bread, and cereal products have doubled in price in the past year.

I remember when I was a child and milk prices got so low in the years following the great depression. The farmers started dumping milk, and the federal government started buying up butter and storing it in caves to bring the price up.
This analogy has very little to do with what is going on with Iran, as Iran is our sworn enemy by their own admission. But it appears that the government appears to be more concerned with finding markets for farmers than in bringing pressure on the Mullahs!

This article was found in FoxNews.com: "Iran spent nearly twice as much on U.S. imports during President Barack Obama's first months in office as it did during the same period in 2008, showing that despite trade penalties and tense relations, the two countries are still doing business.

The U.S. exported $96 million in goods to Iran from January through April, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. government trade data compiled by the World Institute for Strategic Economic Research in Holyoke, Mass. U.S. exports to Iran totaled $51 million during the same period in 2008 and $27 million over those months in 2007.

Soybeans, wheat and medical supplies -- all considered humanitarian items exempt from U.S. trade sanctions -- are among the top exports this year.

The latest trade figures reflect an increase in Iran's agricultural imports over the past year due to poor harvests there, said Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a business group in Washington.

"I wouldn't read too much into it as far as trends are concerned," Reinsch said. Of course he would say this, or he would go the way of Special prosecutor Walpin!

Reinsch said he is hearing from more businesses interested in Iran. But beyond an effort by the Obama administration to encourage talks with Iran, he hasn't seen any policy changes that would lead to more opportunities for U.S. businesses.
Several countries have been more than willing to do business with Iran. Those exporting more than $1 billion in goods to Iran last year included China, $8 billion; Germany, $5.7 billion; Italy, $3.2 billion; France, $2.6 billion; and Japan, $1.9 billion.

That compares with about $747 million in exports to Iran by Britain, $689 million by Belgium, about $685 million by Spain and $683 million by the U.S.

It can be difficult to stop even sensitive goods and technology from making their way to another country. It is common for Iran and other sanctioned countries to use transshipment points such as the United Arab Emirates to try to obtain U.S. goods undetected.

The value of U.S. exports to Iran rose exponentially under Bush, even as he called the country part of an "axis of evil." In 2001, Bush's first year in office, they totaled just $8.3 million, a tiny fraction of last year's number.

Exports during the Bush years included a range of agricultural products and medical supplies, but some more surprising items also made it to Iran: brassieres, fur clothing, sculptures, perfume, musical instruments and military apparel.

Humanitarian shipments are an example of the tricky line the United States has walked in dealing with Iran -- even more so during Iran's election protests. Esprcially since Obama has taken a hands off stance on the violence in the Iranian streets!

All the media are highlighting the fact that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is pleased with the UN resolution "condemning" North Korea for the nuclear tests and the provocative missile launches.

But it appears to me that Clinton is either putting on a good face for the Obama administration, or is naive enough to believe that the UN resolution is more than just useless words on paper!

The Wall Street Journal has an article on the Web today that illustrates how weal the watered down version of the UN reprimand had to be to get China, Russia and other Communists nations who sit on the UN Security Council, to sign on to the worthless document.

"Friday's UN resolution was weaker than the one the U.S. and its allies initially sought.

The new text prohibits the export of all North Korean weapons and the import into North Korea of all arms, excluding small arms, if they are reported to the U.N. That exception was a key demand of China, which exports small arms to North Korea, a Western diplomat said.

Moscow and Beijing agreed to the U.S. draft after language on inspecting North Korean cargo ships in international waters was diluted. Russia and China feared that inspections on the high seas could spark a military conflict with Pyongyang, a Western diplomat said.

"We believe sanctions such as cargo inspections are very complicated and sensitive and countries involved must act prudently and with sufficient grounds," said Zhang Yesui, China's U.N. envoy.

Under the compromise, the resolution says the Security Council "calls upon" -- instead of the earlier "authorizes" -- all U.N. nations to inspect the ships for nuclear-related material and other contraband, with the consent of the vessel's flag state. Flag states that refuse to have a ship boarded must direct the vessel to "an appropriate and convenient port" for inspection -- a loophole that could allow nations both to avoid inspections or to deny ships entry.

At a White House news conference, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., acknowledged that the sanctions don't guarantee a North Korean ship will divert to a nearby port, and the resolution doesn't allow the use of military force"
So essentially the sanctions are worthless!



Complicating the North Korean nuclear situation,until now, South Korean presidents have unreservedly backed the six-party talks -- a forum that includes the U.S., the two Koreas, Japan, China and Russia. The multilateral group was launched by the Bush administration in 2003 after Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and it has been enthusiastically supported by the Obama White House. All six parties say they agree about the need to "denuclearize" the Korean peninsula. Yet the North is believed to have two nuclear programs: a plutonium program and a highly enriched uranium program that Pyongyang alternately denies or boasts about.

The talks -- only the latest iteration of an over twenty year effort to stunt North Korea's nuclear program,haven't worked. And Mr. Lee, speaking at the president's private offices, is the first national leader to publicly acknowledge their failure.

"The North Koreans have gained, or bought, a lot of time through the six-party-talks framework to pursue their own agenda. I think it's important now, at this critical point in time, for us not to repeat any past mistakes," he says. Now, it's "very important for the remaining five countries -- which excludes North Korea -- to come to an agreement on the way forward."

Mr. Lee is obliquely referring to the conflicting goals of the six-party talk participants. South Korea's stated goal is the denuclearization and ultimate reunification of the Korean peninsula. This was the U.S. position under Bush, but now that Obama has indicated that we can accept Iran having a nuclear program.It is not clear that the Obama administration will strive for this result.

China and Russia don't want to see the Kim regime fall, fearing floods of refugees, weapons proliferation, and, most importantly, the potential collapse of a buffer state between them and the democratic nations of North Asia. China has proved an especially difficult negotiating partner since it has served as the North's main economic support since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And I believe that Putin's Russia was complicit in aiding North Korea with their nuclear program.

South Korea's President, Mr. Lee says, "the United Nations resolution calling for increased sanctions looks weak".

What about stricter financial sanctions, like the kind the U.S. Treasury successfully leveled against Banco Delta Asia (a North Korea enabler) in Macau in 2005? That is "one type of sanction that we can level." Should the U.S. add the North to the list of terror-sponsoring nations? "That in itself may have some symbolic meaning. But in actuality, having North Korea on the list or not will not make really much of a difference," he says.

Mr. Lee added that the bottom line: "Our ultimate objective is to try to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, but we must also ask ourselves: What do the North Koreans want in return for giving up their nuclear weapons program? I think this is the type of discussion that the five countries should be engaging in now."

It is not even on the table for consideration, but I believe the USA cannot talk, talk, talk until the North Koreans have the nuclear weapons that can be fitted to the long range missiles that they are developing, before we consider a pre-emptive strike on their missile bases. Or do we wait until the missiles start falling on Alaska and Hawaii?

And to highlite the type of reaction that North Korea had to the UN sanctions there is this from the Japoanese News Agency,Kyodo News Agency.
"North Korea reacted with anger Saturday to a U.N. resolution meant to punish the country for its latest nuclear test, saying it will ''weaponize'' more plutonium, begin uranium enrichment and react militarily to blockades.
In a Foreign Ministry statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, North Korea also called the resolution, "yet another vile product of the U.S.-led offensive aimed at undermining North Korea's ideology and system".